Uh what hysterics?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Republican fcc member warns net neutrality is not neutral
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
Uh what hysterics?
Well, we have difference of opinion on whether or not providers can pick and choose. There is a public interest issue at hand that effects competitive fairness and balance that for me that shouldn't be subject to the whims of profit only companies. Comcast doesn't have to like Netflix, but they shouldn't be able to stop others from using the service. Much like blocking a road to a store someone wants to shop at, wouldn't be allowed.
I'm not anti-regulation on everything, feel there is a role for the government to play, particularly when it comes to utilities. Again, seemingly a difference of opinion between you and I.
It's not equal access if in purchasing the airwaves rights you don't hold up your end of the bargain by allowing unfettered access to all.
I'm not anti-regulation on everything, feel there is a role for the government to play, particularly when it comes to utilities. Again, seemingly a difference of opinion between you and I.
It's not equal access if in purchasing the airwaves rights you don't hold up your end of the bargain by allowing unfettered access to all.
The hysterics that the government involvement in the internet is going to ruin everything for everyone. Prices will too high and innovation will be stifled. I don't believe that to be true. By ensuring free access to all, there is plenty of room to make profits and be innovative. What stops innovation is having only a couple of options. Competition on a level playing field is better for the consumer.
AT&T, Comcast, Time-Warner, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc., etc.
And THAT is the heart of the net neutrality argument.
If YOU, the consumer, want Netflix - you can only have it if Comcast decides to allow it.
Because the carrier won't listen to the consumer?....
It's not "the government pandering to individual content providers"; it's the government stepping in on behalf of the consumer to ensure choice.
If you don't mind the carrier deciding for us what content will be delivered, okay. Dish & DirecTV decide for us all the time what channels we're allowed to watch, every time there's a dispute about whether they're getting paid enough. And the dispute is not about bandwidth; it's about how many viewers are watching that particular channel, and therefore how much more Dish and DirecTV think they're entitled to for allowing viewers to be able to watch that channel.
The Government NEVER is about ensuring Choice, they are about Telling people what they have to choose, or really limiting options until most people can only make one choice.
Public School
USPS
we can add healthcare to that list now
Having the Government regulating the Internet is the worst thing that could happen to the Internet.
Let me ask this: where are you getting your information about net neutrality from? Tech people and tech news sources? Or politicians and media figures?
Actually, the analogy is more along the lines of Comcast built the roads and now wants to charge Netflix, one of the heaviest user of the roads, to use them.
There is a finite capacity for content on the current internet infrastructure. If everyone chooses Netflix and tries to watch at the same time, there will be hiccups in delivering the content. One of the ideas behind net neutrality is that the government guarantees that Comcast can't charge Netflix more to hog their bandwidth. When Netflix hogs bandwidth, access to other sites suffer and consumers get sluggish internet connections.
Here's an analogy. Suppose the government guaranteed that whoever wanted to attend the Super Bowl was entitled to go, and all the tickets had to be priced fairly and the same price. Tickets were only available on game day. Naturally, the NFL and the host city's stadium operators objected. Hey, equal access for all. Do you envision a problem?
You've got it backwards. The dispute is about the individual channels telling Dish/Direct TV that in order to carry them in the future Dish/Direct will have to pay the channel $X.XX per subscriber. Dish/Direct know if they pay, say, ESPN, an additional $.25 per subscriber, pretty soon they are going to have to raise overall rates to their customers to make up the difference. When Dish/Direct have 300 channels and the popular ones can hold them hostage by demanding higher per subscriber fees, and they live on 1 and 2 year fixed contract prices to consumers, that is a recipe for losing money.
Last edited by a moderator:
Part of being allowed to build the road was an agreement that everyone could drive on it (frequency auctions). If you're not allowing everyone to travel on it, you are breaking the agreement and something must be done to ensure this doesn't happen again. (Title II)
This is called a circular argument. Since the internet is not regulated by Title II, there is no agreement mandating that anyone can "drive" on it. When internet is delivered via cable, fiber optic, or phone lines, there are no radio frequency bands being used.
You can't quote Title II applying to the delivery of content via the internet or even phone data plans because it doesn't cover it.
Okay, folks; I'm gonna have to walk back my position a bit. While I support the basic tenets of actual net neutrality, and the way the current FCC chairman phrased his announcement a couple of weeks ago ... I'm deeply concerned that they're not allowing the public to see the 332 page proposal.
This does not bode well.
This does not bode well.
Maybe so; I'd like to say that we find ourselves in another "we have to pass it to see what's in it" type situation...except this time, there's no real voting, and it's going to be forced upon us until someone legally challenges it, or Congress enacts something on their own....